Gregory Fiet, agent for the applicant, address: 10-5420 Finch Avenue East, Scarborough, provided an overview of the application.
Questions to Agent Fiet
Member Trombino inquired about the drawings shown by Agent Fiet, and whether the variances being proposed is indeed the grass area drawings presented by agent Fiet, or if the proposed variances is the drawings the committee received well in advance, that being the existing paved front lawn to remain. Agent Fiet clarified, stating the drawings he displayed was rather a suggestion, to minimize the impact of the paved front lawn, while still having the concrete impact, should they be in the position to ask the owner of the property to remove the concrete.
Member Ellahi inquired, how will they cut the existing concrete on the paved front lawn and keep the remaining portion as it is. Agent Fiet claimed, the cutting of the parliamentary is not the problem, as the thickness is 3.5 inches. Member Ellahi also questioned if you need a curb cut, when you are increasing the width of a driveway. Agent Fiet claimed the existing paved front lawn is not considered a part of the driveway, as the owner has no intention to drive over this surface. Rather, it is a safe environment in terms of holding a daycare.
Public Participation
Marie, address: 1017 Vickerman Way, stated her concern is the paved front lawn being used as a place for cars to be parked.
Mohammed, address: 903 Vickerman Way, complemented the work at 1010 Vickerman Way. He believes the implementing the curb cuts would take away the look of the property. He also sees extra value in using the paved front lawn as an extra parking space for a vehicle. For a comparison, Mohammed stated when he first moved to 903 Vickerman Way, he got a driveway extension done as well, not knowing the By-law at the time. Since he did not have a minor variance, which at the time he was unaware of, he had to perform a curb cut to reduce the size of the concrete, which took away the additional parking spot.
Questions to Planer Stopar
Member Ellahi expressed his concerns, that if the committee allows the owner to keep the width of their driveway that they will need a curb cut permit, and if so, will that be an added condition if the variance is approved by the committee. Planner Stopar stated, the zoning by-law has the 8 metre width because it is permitted for a range of different lot sizes, thus if an owner wanted to increase their driveway within the permitted width of the zoning by-law, they would need a curb cut permit. Which would be applied with the engineering department and engineering staff would cut the curb. Member Ellahi then inquired if they would need to add the condition of the curb cut permit into the approval process. Planner Stopar claimed changes to the recommended conditions would have to be made by the committee. If the committee voted to permit the paved front lawn as existing, the committee could add the condition that a curb cut permit be obtained. If the committee wanted to deny those variances to permit the driveway widening, then there would not be a need for the curb cut permit condition. Member Ellahi also expressed his concern, by allowing owners to have a paved front lawn, sooner or later they would use it as a parking space.
Chair Kluge commented on the fact he did a site visit of the property and noticed other properties that a similar paved front yard, which he is concerned about. He stated by paving over the front lawn, it is doing a disservice, and it is also a part of a bigger, broader picture, such as playing its part in climate change. He also stated the backyard is also paved, thus if you have both the front lawn and backyard paved, then where does the water go. In his opinion, the water would flow off onto neighbouring properties, and the town's storm water management system. Thus, if everyone paved their front lawns and/or backyards the towns storm water management system would be overtaxed.